Tuesday, May 30, 2017

The Horrific Math of the Evolving Cardinalate


The following table shows the proportion of papal electors that will have been selected by Pope Francis, beginning on June 28th, when the five new designates will be confirmed, and extrapolating out, in case Pope Francis continues to occupy the chair in another one, two or three years. Since it's probable that some cardinals under age 80 will die in the interim - to be replaced by Francis - the actual proportions will, of course, almost certainly be higher.  

2017 - 4 years: 49 of 121 (40%)
2018 - 5 years: 53 of 120 (44%)
2019 - 6 years: 59 0f 120 (49%)
2020 - 7 years: 67 of 120 (56%)

At her blog, What's up with the Synod, and in a recent article in The Remnant, Hillary White wonders whether Jorge Bergoglio might have already served his primary purpose for the Modernist revolution/demolition:
A while ago Mike Matt asked me how it could possibly be worse. I said, “Oh, I don’t know. How about someone smarter, more wiley and less obvious, more politically skilled and more plausible, and 20 years younger?”
“Has Bergoglio reached the end of his usefulness? And if so, what’s next on the agenda?” Broadly, he was to sever the connection of the Church’s power structures to her doctrines, most especially the doctrines that the secular world finds most objectionable; that is, on sex and marriage. He was to complete the desacralization of the Church as an institution and remove the last obstacles for a functioning union between Catholicism, “liberal” factions in other Christian confessions and other religions and the globalist, transnationalist elites in Brussels and New York.
All of these things he has accomplished, and the time has come for the Revolution to move on to the next phase.
[…]
The short version is that at the end of 4 years of Pope Francis Bergoglio, every bit of the power and money of the institutions of the Catholic Church is now in the hands of the completely triumphant post-Conciliar, secularist, globalist, neo-modernist Revolution. And that is why I think that Bergoglio’s reign will not last much longer. His purpose has been accomplished; Maradiaga’s “irreversible renovation” of the Church is done.
Bergoglio himself has been recorded saying that he thought his pontificate would last about 4 years. And here we are. We know that certain people put him in place for certain reasons. He was to accomplish some very particular tasks and I think he has done so. I think overall, his job was to complete the demolition project of the radical revolutionaries of the Vaticantwoist project; that is, the total reconstruction of the Catholic Church along the lines of their vision. 
What I believe is that now that the Wrecking Ball has done his work, we will next have the Surgeon.
As Miss White mentions, one of the most important projects of Bergoglio was packing the voting-age cardinalate with the Modernists's men.

Let's look at the numbers again:  

2017 - 4 years: 49 of 121 (40%)
2018 - 5 years: 53 of 121 (44%)
2019 - 6 years: 59 0f 120 (49%)
2020 - 7 years: 67 of 120 (56%)

Now, of course, most of the current cardinal revolutionaries or useful idiots/hacks or whatever one wants to call them, were actually selected by Benedict XVI or John Paul II. This shows two things:
  1. How tolerant, trusting, naive or clueless Benedict and John Paul II were towards the enemies of the Church (as opposed to how focused and dedicated Francis and his allies have been in choosing people that are on board for their agenda), and
  2. How the above numbers are in fact much worse than they seem - many if not most of those not selected by Francis are just as likely to choose another Francis (or as White argues, an even more dangerous man than Francis) as are the Francis appointees.
Those who think the current crisis will end with the death or resignation of Francis are deluding themselves.

The "interesting times" are only beginning.

16 comments:

  1. Ah, that's "Miss White" if you don't mind, Oakes. And you're a bit behind. Mike published it on the site a week ago.

    http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3208-the-path-to-rome-and-the-ascendency-of-pope-peter-ii

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies on both counts. Give me a moment to fix and link. I had a feeling that I might have missed it, but I kept checking, obviously not very observantly.

      Delete
  2. "Now, of course, most of the current cardinal revolutionaries or useful idiots/hacks or whatever one wants to call them, were actually selected by Benedict XVI or John Paul II."

    Actually, I think this shows two other things:

    1) An indictment: "Conservatives" that they might be, that JPII and BXVI were, in fact, simply another species of "liberal," in the broad sense of the term, since both would have been considered such by pretty much any pre-conciliar pope. And this liberalism included an unhealthy dose of "collegiality."

    2) A defense: JPII and BXVI inherited a Church hierarchy, clergy and academia that was mostly populated by liberals, often of a very progressive pedigree, and had to operate (even in most nominally Catholic countries) in societies dominated by liberal cultural elites who would support those hierarchs, clergy, and academics, and were motivated by no small amount of fear of large-scale schism and lack of willing allies.

    At any rate, liberals are going to keep control of the hierarchy in most places (Rome included) for a while longer, it seems. All we know is how that project will turn out, which is the same way it always turns out - ecclesiastical death. And maybe that's the way it has to go, before there can be any real rebuilding. But I confess it's extremely depressing in the meanwhile to be persecuted and abandoned by our own shepherds, all the way up to the top. Even a Pornocracy Pope wouldn't be this demoralizing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How tolerant, trusting, naive or clueless ... Jesus was when he appointed the Twelve ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well they did their part. In fact, the Church maintained the faith for what, 1900 years, intact? After this, the smoke of Satan...

      Delete
    2. Disingenuous at best Walter. I really tire at tepid catholics rambling-on endlessly about what a fetid lot the Apostles were. Even at their worst, they (excluding judas) were a thousand times better than most of the best of us.

      Delete
  4. I am not being naive but Christ is still in control of His Church even though for some He is not...I say let's stop being so paranoid and stop adding more anxiety to a situation that is not in our hands.

    Like I said my humble opinion is that Christ is in control of things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's true, as far as to goes. But part of His "control" is such that he gives us the freedom to fight for things, or, rather, to fight for Him, which is also, I suppose, partly the consequence of the fact that it's a fallen world.

      Fighting against (or even merely calling attention to) injustice or heresy, or an attempt to destroy the Church is not paranoia. It is, I think, what He wants. Personally, I would prefer not to have that burden, but many Christians have had far greater ones.

      You get to choose whether or not to follow Him. You don't get to choose where that, in this life, at least, may lead you. That's part of the deal.

      I don't think passivity is the answer.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. No, I am not talking about passivity but neither do I think many are right with all their anger and rants about the situation in the Church today.

      Many want to imitate the Crusaders but many who go about spreading more paranoia and anxiety on their blogs or by any other means are NO Crusaders NO matter how much they want be.

      Passivity is not the answer, but going up in arms might NOT be either!

      Delete
    4. but then again, it might be.

      Delete
  5. Hilary could very well be correct. But here is an alternate view from American Catholic concerning the Bishops, especially American bishops.
    http://the-american-catholic.com/2017/05/30/popewatch-bishops-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AmericanCatholic+%28The+American+Catholic%29

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is no way possible a Cardinal Burke or Sarah can be elected Supreme Pontiff, especially if the 2/3 majority rule remains in place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think on Facebook I went along with the claim that a Sarah could get elected partly by getting the support of the sorts of people who always shift with the wind. But the more I think about it, the more unlikely that sort of scenario seems to me.

      And of course, we're not only running out of electors who would vote for a Burke or a Sarah, we're running out of Burkes and Sarahs.

      Delete
  7. The "interesting times" started with the council and the associated diabolical disorientation. Francis is, in some senses, to be sure, the worst of the lot thus far, yet, also, merely the quintissential Vatican II Pope.

    But perhaps not the Omega Point.

    These Interesting Times will not be ended by men.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you for this work. Hard statistics are very helpful right now.

    ReplyDelete